The Archbishop of Canterbury’s hopes of averting schism in the worldwide Anglican Church are foundering after he was accused of dehumanising gays by the openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson.
Dr Rowan Williams is holding two days of crisis talks in New Orleans in an eleventh-hour effort to persuade the bishops of the American branch of Anglicanism to reverse their pro-gay agenda.
But insiders said that a number of the liberal bishops were in no mood to capitulate, and any compromise that they might eventually accept was unlikely to placate conservatives who want them ousted.
Documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph suggest that they may agree an ambiguous form of words that will fall far short of the unequivocal reassurances demanded of them, leaving Anglicanism on the brink of collapse.
Ufda. If this is true … game over …
Md Brian
[blockquote]But the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop who urges his colleagues to adopt a far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.[/blockquote]
I don’t think this will work any more. It will be treated as the “No” that it is.
Can you say “Self-destructive behavior”? Sure, I knew you could.
🙄
Md Brian:
You’re dead on.
I find it hard to believe the hearts of the revisionists could be so hardened, but so it appears they are. To say, as did Robinson, that Abp. Williams “dehumanized” gays because he also happened to point out that others have been hurt here defies all logic and all reason.
I consider myself blessed to have been born and raised in the Anglican tradition. I am saddened and, yes, disgusted, by what has happened to my church. But I guess God leads us down unexpected paths.
Oh dear. Having read the article I am struck by +Robinson’s clear overreaction. ABP says (according to article – and we need to keep in mind this is filtered through da Media) “you need to balance fidelity to GLBT and to the Communion”. +Robinson reacts “we need to choose between the two? how dehumanizing”. (1) He appears to be twisting and misrepresenting the ABP’s words. (Would ++Williams ever say anything dehumanizing? Is that his style? his pattern? Come on Gene!) “Balance” is twisted into “choose!” I confess to having little patience with dichotomistic/binary thinking. Ironic that +Robinson of all people should engage in such? (2) We have the problem of a purely subjective reaction. Just because +Robinson says “that’s dehumanizing” does not mean it truly is. And to those who say “as a matter of fact it does” I say they are guilty of solipsism. Reality is defined by our emotional reactions?
Again – we have the problem of reading all this through a reporter’s lens. Not to blame the reporter, just to be aware of the problems of 2nd even 3rd hand information.
God Bless +Gene Robinson for speaking truth to power! There is no turning back by TEC. Nor should there be. The US Church has taken the lead in teaching that gays are to be fully included in TEC. That is our absolute truth. As Bishop Jenkins so aptly put it… “there are NO throw aways lives.”
Rick,
You are very generous in your comments. True – a reporter may not hear a quote with complete accuracy.
OTHO, during my time in our bishop’s office in the Bay Area of California, I heard some of the same language from our advocates. It really is all about them and their sexual desires.
Maryland Brian
“the situation as a choice between fidelity to gays and fidelity to the Communion “is one of the most dehumanising things I have heard in a long time” and he wanted no part of it”
Then leave. If you refuse to understand the situation, and submit to what is expected of you as a member of the Anglican Communion, just leave. You’ve caused enough trouble, Gene.
“Rt Rev Thomas Shaw, also criticised the Archbishop for failing to honour the American Church’s “prophetic discernment” in consecrating Bishop Robinson.”
It hasn’t been honored because it is based on NOTHING. If the reappraisers would honor “reason” as part of our tradition, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess. But, alas…
Well, I know, I do not hope, that Anglicanism which denies the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and blesses sin in rebellion against God will collapse, and will do so rather quickly. The thing that many of you orthodox are in denial about is that its over, already. You evidently believe that some sort of political compromise that gives the “orthodox” in TEC “something” is worth anything. It is not; it is a mess of pottage. After the New Orleans deal is cut, whether Canterbury and the Global South agree to it, or do not, TEC will not have changed one whit from its apostate trajectory.
So what do we pray for, friends? Do we pray for a political deal? Do we pray for repentence on the part of TEC? Do we pray that Pharoah’s heart is hardened, or softened?
[Dr Williams, who preached at an ecumenical service complete with jazz and dancing yesterday, also left the meeting for a trip to Armenia, Syria and the Lebanon.]
The ABC goes on to sunnier and friendlier climes, to spread more words of peace and reconciliation…
Taz-he might find the Middle East to be less intractable.
What kind of love is it that allows someone to commit spiritual suicide? What answer will these bishops give to the thousands of homosexual men and women who, at the Final Judgment, are asked face-to-face, “You knew…why didn’t you tell me the truth?”
Poor Gene. The church doesn’t need his kind of false prophecy.
When all else fails play the victim card.
Good grief, TonyinCNY, I’ve seen “victims” all over the map — go check out BabyBlue and hear of the “pain” of schism (she who joined her fellow Truroites in departing The Episcopal Church — and she who would attempt to steal the building at the same time). Yeah, listen to the “pain” of reasserters. (What about the pain of those left in the lurch?!? Does she honor that?!? No: They [continuing Episcopalians] are really really welcome — as long as they do things [i]our[/i] way now…)
Then listen to the pain of homosexual men and women who are dehumanized, verbally and physically abused, turned away from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ [i]because of who they love[/i], denied hospital access to a dying partner in Virginia (yes, it is true), and left to die on a fence in Wyoming. Once you have listened and inwardly digested [i]that[/i] pain, I may pay attention to you. But as long as you denigrate true victimization by trivializing it, my ears cannot hear you.
To be asked to choose from “the least of these” in favor of a bloody institution (said with verve and truth) is indeed dehumanizing. To place my very being, my soul, my place at God’s table in contrast to the continued existence of a neo-Puritanical institution is indeed dehumanizing. It denies my self as being made in the image of God and it dehumanizes the love I have for my partner.
And I’m totally sick and tired of being a victim. In fact, I’m just not going to be one. Take that game and go. (And if a snarkster says “geeze, Padre, where’s the loooove?” well, it’s true: I’m not feeling it very much.)
The homosexual issue continues to be cast in the light of full inclusion/full exclusion, and this is patently false. TEC wishes the issue to be so cast because the notion of absolute exclusion is abhorrent to everybody. But this is simply a false dichotomy. The conservatives have been saying, as clearly as can be said, that homosexuals will not be in the clergy but are welcomed into a congregation. Yes, the conservatives are going to stick with what scripture says, but that says that, like the rest of our wrongful behavior, homosexual behavior is sinful. Shedding that sin and redemption are open them as it isto us. The TEC position is “We want it all, and we want it right now,” is so very adolescent American, so thoroughly the product of the Baby Boomers, that they will never be able to understand that this demand is always excessive, and always to be refused on tht ground alone. LM
It is time for Gene to leave. He has wrecked the whole communion and is to selfish and stupid to know any better.
Then listen to the pain of homosexual men and women who are turned away from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ
Is this happening in American churches, Padre Wayne? Where?
Padre Wayne, as to the pain of the homosexual, you left our Craig who looks for homosexual coupling in the mens’ room, admits it, and then denies it, and then says he is going to clear his name. His pain must be very great. Think how he has suffered.And think how VGR has suffered. He has almost singlehandledly split the AC into warring camps and has no remorse therefore, and he did it knowing that it would happen. Think of his pain!
And the point of my sarcasm is this, that homosexuals are no more the recipients of of pain and suffering that anyone else who has broken society’s rules, right or wrongly. The difference here, as #14 has pointed out, that this pain is being exploited – and therefore cheapened – even when the exploiters have suffered nothing. To use guilt as a whip to extract favors and benefits is a disgraceful practice. And the illegal Hispanic immigrants are doing the very same thing right now. Thjis is not a new ploy, but the left has given it a vicious extension in public policy and private coercion. LM
Larry Morse: “The conservatives have been saying, as clearly as can be said, that homosexuals will not be in the clergy but are welcomed into a congregation. ” This is a) misleading and b) not exactly true. If you mean they will be welcome to give their time, talent and treasure, you’re right. But when it comes to being accepted — no, cherished — as leaders, lay and ordained, it is not true. Simply. Not. True. You’ve already said that we are not welcome as clergy — and you’ve therefore negated our access to all orders of the church which we receive in our baptism.
I’d love to see how empty the church would be — spiritually as well as in numbers — if we homosexuals simply didn’t show up. Do you really yearn for a church of such sameness? Such limitation? Do you really feel you can safely put God’s desires, God’s love, in a box that says “accessible only to some”?
Do you really want an Episcopal Church that says “Some are welcome”?
Sherri: Yes, it has happened many, many times. I would not make this up.
Yes, Larry Morse, your sarcasm belies any sincerity. Homosexuals have not broken society’s rules — they simply [i]are[/i]! You may not believe we were born “that way,” but this has been documented by many studies (and I realize you can dredge up the opposite). We are who we are. Get over it.
Uh…for 3/4 of the Christians who live right now and 100% of the Christians who lived in the past, WOMEN are in exactly the position you’re describing — welcome to contribute, not accepted in holy orders. Any you know what — the vast majority of us actually think it’s a good thing! And the minority who don’t, discuss it rationally and don’t try to split the church in two over it and claim that they are suffering horribly or comparing themselves to blacks in the segregated south. And I’ll tell you something else — there is easily 1,000 times more violence against women as women than there ever has been against gays and gays. For every one gay person you can find who was killed or attacked because they’re gay I can find 1,000 women who were raped or murdered by a psychopath with an insane rage towards women. You positioning yourself as an oppressed minority living under constant threat of death is absurd. I’ll bet you anything you don’t think twice about walking your dog at night or parking at the far end of a dark parking lot or leaving your windows open on a hot summer night. You have ZERO idea what it means to really have to think all the time about how to keep yourself physically safe from someone who would attack or kill you.
There are limitations and choices that have to be made in life. Get over it.
Catholic Mom, much of what you say is so very true. However…
I was in my hospital chaplaincy training with an amazingly gifted group of seminarians from different denominations. During that summer the SBC announced that women would not longer be accepted as clergy. I can tell you that the Baptist woman with whom I had been studying, praying, learning, and ministering, and who had been lauded as an admirable candidate for clergy, was so very full of pain that day. I know other women who have been denied access to ordination because of their gender — and they do not think “it’s a good thing!” Where in the heck do you get your statistic, “the vast majority”?
I [b][i]fully[/b][i] agree with your argument that there is a huge difference between violence to women — simply because they are women — than there is to gay and lesbian people. I’m not sure your stats hold true, but I have no argument with you. It is not, however, absurd that I live under constant threat (probably not of death, but certainly of harrassment and possibly of physical harm). It’s not true where I live, but I can certainly assure you that there have been many times when I have felt physically unsafe — having bottles thrown at me from a passing car with the yell “faggot” is just one example. My partner being beaten by his football team is another.
I’m not going to play the game of “my experience of harrassment/physical harm/discrimination is greater than yours.” When any of us is oppressed we are all oppressed — as we have done it to the least of these…
Your last sentence doesn’t make sense to me, so no further comment.
“The vast majority” refers to Catholic and Orthodox women — whose Churches comprise 3/4 of all Christians. I am not counting the Baptist women whose experience I am not familiar with but who are statistically a small minority of the Christian whole. And we think this is a good thing because 1) we believe it theologically 2) we look at the experience of the Anglican Church and cringe.
Who in the world ever told you that your baptism gave you “access to holy orders”? In the early Church, ordination was limited to men without any physical defects — no eunuchs, amputees, blind people, etc. This was because priests were considered to be — in their own bodies — a sacrifice to God and, just as the Jews would only sacrifice a perfect animal without blemish, so a priest had to be without “blemish.” This was eventually changed, but the point is/was that the Church can call (or not call) anybody for any reason whatsover that they choose. There is no “right” to ordination! If the Church decides that you have to be bi-lingual to be ordained, then that rules out all the mono-lingual people like myself (already ruled out by gender.)
I simply can’t imagine how someone could come up with the idea that there was a “right” to “access to holy orders” and that this was somehow conferred by baptism. Must be more of the really bad theology taught in a lot of Episcopal churches and seminaries these days
Simple. I’ve chosen to be Catholic. This precludes other choices — like holy orders.
You’ve chosen to be gay. This precludes other choices — like holy orders. Get over it.
.
One point to PadreWayne — in the typical biblical conservative church “all sinners are accepted, and none are expected to stay the same but be changed into the likeness of Christ.” This “holiness of life” is required to become leaders in the Church. The point you refuse to acknowledge is that this holiness includes the traditional understanding of chastity. Disagree with this stance but don’t say it is something else. It IS a refusal to accept homosexuals on their terms. Like all sinners, we are only accepted on Jesus’ terms.
To others: There is still a strong stigma to being gay in many circles of society and in the Church. For instance, telling a men’s small group that you go to AA meetings and don’t drink anymore is received much more warmly than saying you go to Exodus Conferences and don’t have sex with other men anymore. For years, conservatives had no idea what to say to men and women with same sex attractions other than “don’t.” “Don’t” is not very helpful when it affects so many factors of one’s life. It is no wonder that so many sexually broken assume “homosexual” rather than child of God as their identity.
And with regard to Gene Robinson: There is nothing said to him that is more dehumanizing than what he is already doing to himself. To be truly human is to be one with God. That only comes in obedience. The fact that he is so blind to this is all the more reason for compassion for him and all those he misleads.
Correction: I meant to say “you’ve chosen to be a sexually active gay person.” I don’t want to get into a discussion of the biological basis for homosexuality, which I’m perfectly willing to believe is innate without changing my view that a sexually active homosexual is disqualified from holy orders. BTW, in my Church, married HETEROsexuals are ALSO disqualified from holy orders (except recently, the diaconate.) Again…there is no inherent “right” to ordination based on baptism! You make your choices, you live with the limitations they impose.
BTW (I keep thinking of new thoughts in between bathing the kids) I used to work with two ex-Catholic priests I became good friends with. They were gay and had a long-term committed relationship with each other. In all integrity (if I may use the word in its proper sense) they concluded that they could not continue in the priesthood while having a sexual relationship and, to their credit, they resigned. They were both extremely religious and orthodox, except, obviously for their attitude towards homosexuality which they considered acceptable in a committed relationship. They could have become Episcopalians but they actually believed in their faith and they continued as Catholics, but not in the clergy. I had tremendous respect for both those guys. Way more than I could ever have for a guy like Gene Robinson. I never heard them suggest that their baptism gave them the right to be priests.
Catholic Mom, you were swinging along just fine until: “You’ve chosen to be gay.” And I was about to jump on it until I saw your next post (I am, on occasion, observant! :-)) But yes, I have chosen to be a sexually active gay person, [i]within my relationship with my partner[/i] — i.e., I would never argue that promiscuity was a holy life choice. And, thanks be to God, it has not precluded me from holy orders.
Catholic Mom (sorry, the rest of you, if we seem to be monopolizing this conversation) (and CM, I am enjoying our conversation though I think I hear a bit of exasperation coming from your end?), I never said [i]anyne[/i] has the [i]right[/i] to ordination. And I never would say that. The right to [i]access[/i] to the process, however, is what I said. And when I questioned your stats “the vast majority,” you used that term above to say that “the vast majority of us think it’s [ordination for men only] a good thing!” That is the stat I questioned, not the stat that the majority of Christianity denies ordination to women — I accept that as a given. I don’t think, though, that you can really say that the preponderance of women think limiting ordination to men only is a good thing. I could be wrong.
RE: Your friends, who sound like well-reasoned men of great integrity. Because they are Roman Catholic, [i]any[/i] sexual relationship is taboo. I’m aware of a number of heterosexual RC clergy who have done the same thing, to their credit (and not, certainly, without pain).
Actually, I don’t know what the latest surveys would show. However, I know a LOT of Catholic women and I don’t know ANY (I know there are some) who are CONVINCED that there should be women priests. Some of my friends might be neutral about it — actually it’s just not a topic of conversation that much. When it is, it’s more a question of “would the Church be better off with women priests” not “is the Church committing a horrendous injustice by not allowing women to be priests.” Of the women I’ve read about who feel very very strongly on the subject, I don’t know of a single one who would ever think of doing to THEIR Church what the gay lobby has done to the Anglican Church in order to achieve their ends.
It was the “get over” it comment. That and the concept that baptism gives you “access” to holy orders. Sorry, I still can’t figure out what planet that came from. Well… actually I can figure out where you got that, I just can’t figure out from what time/space continuum ECUSA got that.
Now I have to go to bed because we’re getting up at the crack of dawn to go to Hershey Park. But I’ll be back. 🙂
Catholic Mom’s pseudo- statistic about 1000 women raped by psychopaths compared to the violence done to homosexuals is of course way over the top, the kind of nonsense one hears from the radical femlib types on every college campus, although the case she cites to you – that y ou are not frightened walking home – also applies the the vast run of women, and I suspect (but don’t know) that her risk of being raped by a crazed women hater on the way home is vanishly small. Long centuries ago,( in the early fifties) I hitchhiked a lot in the south and I was in a kind of lowlevel, constant danger, because the rednecks could smell a N’othener a mile away and they were a violent and dangerous crew. And yet, though I had some close calls, I survived without a scratch.
To concentrate examples of harrassment in a small space is to create a kind of lie because the concentration falsely represents reality. The nearest real catastrophe I even had was in the men’s room at the Y in New York. I had four big bad boys who wanted sex and made it clear what would happen to me if I refused. I had a pocket knife with me, that’s all,and I thought I had bought the farm. But I got lucky. A bunch of men walked in, I walked behind them, out the door, very cool you know, and then ran. That was my second confrontation with homosexuals. The first wasn’t near so bad.
What shall I conclude from this? Shall I take all the times that homosexuals have hit on guys, cite them altogether here [esp. catholic priests and boys of all ages), claim that my case in commonplace (as you can see from the gathered cases) and then conclude…etc. ? This is nonsense. A bunch of mean, vicious homosexuals almost nailed me. What then? Now hear this: This is the risk you take when you leave the safety of your own home. Try to be a big boy and stop whining.
And alter this fact if you can: Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and it is clear that marriage means one man and one woman. What shall we do, in the name of political correctness, turn our back on scripture, since scripture is clear here, and subtle interpretation is unnecessary?
I feel the same sympathy for homosexuals that I I feel for the insane. I never forget to say to myself, “There but for the grace of God,go I.” The insane cannot help themselves; their insanity is not their fault, by and large. And they are people just like you. Shall I say that they should be put in exalted places – the priesthood, a bishopric – when they cannot take their meds, and all because social justice requires it? Or shall I say that they demand our help and sympathy because their handicap is so severe? Does God care for them? BUt should they carry dommercial driving licenses for school buses?
And so with homosexuals. They are obviously severely handicapped even thouogh the handicap is not visible, but then, neither is the handicap visible in epileptics, and the law restricts what they are permitted to do as it restricts the mentally ill. You are dreadfully handicapped abnd should be under the ADA, but does that mean that you should be permitted to be a Scout Master in the Boy Scouts and be allowed to take boys on hikes by yourself? Well, the Boy Scouts have had a lot of bitter, expensive experience with what happens when homosexuals become scoutmasters, and they absolutely forbid it. What then? ARe homosexuals discriminated against unfairly? Tell that to the parents of the boys and the boys themselves who had the wrong sort of scoutmaster. Our handicaps limit our options, and so they should, and this is true for us all. LM
What burns me up is there are only 1931 members in Integrity and they have just about ruined the third biggest denomination in the world. Makes you wonder…Guess we will need to have our guard up better next time.
Larry Morse: “Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and it is clear that marriage means one man and one woman.” I disagree, we disagree, we will probably never agree, but it is not “fact.”
Good grief, I started to respond point by point to the rest, but it is so garbled and misleading and full of red herrings that I simply give up. Sorry.
And I’m not dreadfully handicapped.
Zoot: What is it about “the least of these” that you don’t understand?
I gotta admit, Padre, your #15 post made me laugh out loud. Wave the bloody shirt then thrust your chin out and declare you’re not going to play the victim any longer. Absolute comedy gold!
Just a point of clarification… there is a big difference between the prohibition against homosexual physical relations and the mandated celibacy in the Latin Church for clergy. The first is scripturally imposed and a matter of irreformable doctrine. The latter is a discipline of the Roman Church that is about a thousand years old. It was never practiced in the East, and even among the uniate Eastern Churches in communion with the Pope it is not generally observed (outside of North America). Also there are married Roman Catholic priests since some ex Anglican clergy are permitted to be ordained into the RCC despite being married. Thus this rule appears to be a discipline of the sacraments not a dogma.
Padre Wayne my wife and I know several gay people and some of them are really good friends of ours. But you guys in the Episcopal Church don’t know when to stop or when to draw the line. You are pushy,selfish people. Do you think I want to confuse my children when we go to church and see gay men kiss each other on the lips during “the peace”. Well it has happened and I have been a pretty tolerate person up until now and you and the rest of this “santanic cult” needs to leave and quit pushing your so called sin down our throats. Do you see alcoholics drinking during church? When we get tossed out of the Anglican Communion there is nobody to blame but the gays. Louie Crew started it all and it has been downhill ride since then. I ask…Why do you guys insist on ruining the church and trying twist scripture?
Catholic Mom has impressive arguments. Just to add my two cents: PadreWayne began the conversation by saying that we need to really listen to the victims, such as Matthew Shepard.
I only want to comment that unjust suffering in no way qualifies anyone, and certainly not Gene Robinson, to be a bishop. Lots of people in the world suffer unjustly. Children as young as 3 or 4 are regularly kidnapped from places like Pakistan, and taken to places like Saudi Arabia, and made to work as camel jockeys until they are too big–maybe age 10 or 12 or 13. When they reach this age, they need to be taught things like how to use a toilet, or how to sleep on a bed, because they haven’t learned such things. This is terrible suffering, and horribly unjust. But it doesn’t qualify them to be bishops in the Episcopal Church.
My niece is now 18 years old, and she has never been able to talk or move anything other than her right forearm. That’s terrible, but it doesn’t qualify her to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church.
The fact that gays are sometimes the victims of unjust suffering doesn’t qualify them for leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ.
And perhaps it is uncharitable to add, but the point must be made that American gays are certainly the richest and most influential oppressed minority anywhere in the world or in human history. All of the gays I know are much wealthier than I am–no kids, double income! My boss is gay. Susan Russell, who lives in my town, is much wealthier than I am, I am quite sure. The camel jockeys and my niece and lots of others who suffer unjustly, I can muster up a lot of sympathy for; American gays–apart from people like Matthew Shepard–are a somewhat harder project for me.
I have never rejected anybody if you are referring to me. I am actually a pretty nice guy and get along with everyone very well. My whole problem is that I don’t see this gay movement thing being the least bit Christian. I think if you cared about God you would make an honest attempt to redeem yourselves and get some help. But all any of you want to do is whine and try to change our thinking and it is not going to work. I think you are the sad folk-and we need to let you go and help you find a welcome place and when you change and seek redemption, we’ll be there. Peace
“Padre”: ““Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and it is clear that marriage means one man and one woman.” I disagree, we disagree, we will probably never agree, but it is not “fact.” ”
If you disagree, then you are either illiterate, or a liar. Which is it, “padre”?
Tpaine: “Don’t you understand that these folks are nuts in many ways?”
“These are the sad folk—we need to let them go until they need a welcome place. We are ready for that. And when they need us, and when they have grown, we’ll be there.
You are a pathetic liar. You are an arrogant person who has rejected scripture, reason, and tradition. I don’t know what you think you are, but you can’t be recognized as an Anglican. Words simply cannot describe how sad you are. You say you’ll be there for us unenlightened? Don’t bother. We don’t need your baggage to drag us to Hell.
Rolling Eyes, I think it is time for a bunch of us “take the bull by the horns.” We have all been way to polite the last four years and I think it is time to really fight back. You agree? This whole mess is not about God- it is about special interest groups trying to take over our church. So far they have done a pretty good job with very little manpower. (no pun intended)
Something has been missing from most of the blogs I have scanned and the discussions that I read. What is missing is that unique christian substance called GRACE! Nobody discusses or calls us to a life of grace. Nobody has a right in God’s kingdom, we should come as wide eyed children. Any body feel put down or harrassed because of who or what you are? Stand at the foot of the cross and look up at our Lord and say “Gee Jesus somebody looked at me funny because I’m….. (fill in the blank).” Just maybe Jesus could put that in persepective for you. What has happened to take up your cross and Follow me? Where is the laying down your life for your brother? Where is avoiding certian activities (even thought lawful but not profitable) to avoid affending others? Where are the GRACEous comments that turn us from our selves to Christ?
Lee in Pasadena: “I only want to comment that unjust suffering in no way qualifies anyone, and certainly not Gene Robinson, to be a bishop. ” I never said that.
Rolling Eyes: “”Padre”: ““Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and it is clear that marriage means one man and one woman.” I disagree, we disagree, we will probably never agree, but it is not “fact.” “
If you disagree, then you are either illiterate, or a liar. Which is it, “padre”?”
Thanks, dude. Or dudette. I am not illiterate and I am not a liar. I use a hermeneutic which encourages questionaing, interpretation, and prayer, and allows for the possibility of new revelation — and allows for the possibility that I Might Be Wrong. While I do not dispute the interpretation which gives the “clobber texts” their weight — i.e., that the physical manifestation of homosexual eroticism is wrong — I do dispute the [i]use[/i] of those texts in light of new understandings of human sexuality, particularly human homosexuality as an orientation — and consensual, faithful, homosexual relationships as [i]quite possibly[/i] being holy.
Rolling Eyes, I see that Tpaine pushed your buttons, and I’m sorry for that — but I would also tend to agree with Tpaine. S/he is not a pathetic liar, and his/her comment was no more arrogant than one which says “you have rejected scripture, reason, and tradition…you can’t be recognized as an Anglican…We don’t need your baggage to drag us to Hell.”
I’m not sure that my comments are welcome here any longer… but I will continue for a bit to try to express my pov and to try to listen to that of [some] others.
[blockquote] I never said that. [/blockquote]
Oh, please. Then why did you drag them into the conversation?
[i]I do dispute the use of those texts in light of new understandings of human sexuality, particularly human homosexuality as an orientation[/i]
Such nonsense is left-over cultural baggage from the science of years ago. People who are more up to date on these things find that more recent science shows us not as “gay” or “straight” but all along a sexual continuum, and that our sexuality is a fluid thing that is affected by nature, burture, culture, and where we are in our lives at any given moment.
Which takes us, Scripturally speaking, right back to Romans.
Shows us once again that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The problem with the “current unpleasantness” is not sex – we are all sexual sinners to a degree in this day and age in the West, our damnedable culture sees to that. No, the problem is pride – pride that says our sin is a good thing. The ABC has refused to allow Americans to wallow in their pride unchecked, thus he has “dehumanized” them…
Funny, I would say that such discipline helps make us more human…
Jeffersonian: Way back (#14) TonyinNYC denigrated true victims and I responded. I did not say that being oppressed or put down or victimized or physically/spiritually/verbally abused automatically qualifies one to be a bishop. It obviously does not.
MJD_NV I’d argue that no, it [i]is[/i] about sex. Read the blogs over and over again and you’ll see, over and over again, the same issue revisited: sex. Sex, sexual orientation, physical expression, the “ick factor.” I think it is also about gender, and hetero male fear (yes, homophobia). I don’t think it is pride at all — unless one also is willing to examine the hubris of ++Akinola, +Iker, +Schofield, and +Duncan.
And MJD_NV, I concur with your bringing forth “more current” studies of human sexuality (if by “more current” you mean Kinsey, fergoshsakes) showing the continuum model. However…If one is a 1 or a 6…
Sorry, Padre, but #14 was talking about Gene Robinson stretching his arms out on the cross, a perfect sacrifice for the revisionist agenda. ++Rowan in no way “dehumanized” Robinson and Robinson’s histrionics were, as Barry Farber puts it, a substance found in abundance wherever well-fed cattle congregate. If you can’t manage to keep your hands off the boyfriend, don’t expect to get your pointy hat. It’s an opportunity cost, not an affront to human rights, for Pete’s sake.
Jeffersonian, [i]If[/i] ++Rowan meant that there must be a [i]choice[/i] between embracing the ministries and relationships of our faithful GLBT brother and sisters on the one hand, and the communion of an institution on the other, then I would agree (without histrionics, btw) that this is a dehumanizing choice. A “Sophie’s choice,” as some bloggers have put it. The issue certainly goes far beyond (and you must admit this) “keeping your hands off the boyfriend.” It is an affront to the love of God, for Pete’s sake. (And I don’t mean ++Akinola!)
Um… why has a thread on a news item turned into (mostly) PadreWayne-back-and-forth with other commenters? (Not a dig on anyone for the record.) I think the good Padre has expressed his convictions clearly enough. We disagree strongly. He disagrees strongly back.
Back to the news item in question eh? (Not to suggest that the back-and-forth above had [i]nothing[/i] to do with the original item. See PadreWayne’s retort in #50 – clearly germane even if I totally disagree. But surely we have some thread drift here…?)
No, I did not mean Kinsey.
You really should get out more.
No, it is not about sex – it is about pride. The only people constantly talking about sex are those who have too much pride in their own sexuality. Of course, if those are the only people you ever listen to…
Yes , it is all about sex, just as it seems, and I ask, “Why should it not be?” Evolution has decided if you will allow me tht expression) that reproduction is quintessential,(as is adaptation)
This is the air all living creatures breathe, it surrounds us on all sides, we cannot escape it. Moreover, this ancient mandate pervades much that we do and think – how we dress as well as how we deal with each other, and it has made it such tht men and women are radically different.
Evolution’s “errors” solve themselves. But fertility, that pervasive positive force, energizes mankind from birth to death, and it makes of homosexuality an adventitious member, like the appendix, an undertaking by evolution that is a dead end. Scripture only makes it a sin because evolution makes it a dead end, a road which cannot be taken if we are to survive. Evolution is sauve quip peut; Christianity has said that if you give over this dead end, you too can live forever, and there is no doubt that evolution’s subtle potential (and part of God’s intelligent design) can be seen in this as well. LM
[blockquote] Jeffersonian, If ++Rowan meant that there must be a choice between embracing the ministries and relationships of our faithful GLBT brother and sisters on the one hand, and the communion of an institution on the other, then I would agree (without histrionics, btw) that this is a dehumanizing choice. A “Sophie’s choice,” as some bloggers have put it. The issue certainly goes far beyond (and you must admit this) “keeping your hands off the boyfriend.” It is an affront to the love of God, for Pete’s sake. (And I don’t mean ++Akinola!) [/blockquote]
We both know what ++Rowan meant, and it had nothing to do with denying ministry to gays or even gay clergy.